An extremist, not a fanatic

November 09, 2014

Leadership in question

The ancient Celts used to sacrifice their kings when their crops failed. Looking at those anonymous MPs who want Ed Miliband to stand down makes me wonder if thinking about leadership has progressed in the last few thousand years.

Just as the Celts thought that the right leader would appease the angry gods, so some MPs seem to think he (or she) will appease an angry electorate. This ignores some nasty questions, such as: to what extent is the problem Miliband rather than Labour itself? Could it be that social democracy has little to offer to a reactionary electorate in an era of slow growth? Could any leader may much difference, given that the number of constraints that s/he faces? And is it possible for anyone now to be an effective leader?

Let's develop that last question. Think about the qualities a Labour leader needs. S/he must: connect with voters whilst appearing a "credible" future PM - a tricky balancing act: must develop policies which are efficient, egalitarian and popular, which might be an empty set; must build an efficient party machine with the people and funds to fight elections; and must smooth the egos and conflicts within the shadow cabinet.

It's quite possible that nobody meets all these criteria*. And even if such a person did exist, a party that appointed Gordon Brown leader unopposed and elected Ed Miliband might not have the competence to elect them; as someone once said, the one thing rarer than talent is the ability to spot talent.

I fear that the urge for the right leader is an example of something that's infected the left for a long time. I've called it Bonnie Tyler syndrome - holding out for a hero. It's an example of cargo cult thinking - assuming that the right leader will deliver results without asking: through what precise mechanism will s/he do so? As Archie Brown has said, "The idea of the strong leader is the pursuit of a false god." It is, he says:

an illusion - and one as dangerous as it is widespread - that in contemporary democracies the more a leader dominates his or her political party and Cabinet, the greater the leader. A more collegial style of leadership is too often characterised as a weakness, the advantages of a more collective political leadership too commonly overlooked. (The Myth of the Strong Leader).

In a world of complexity and bounded rationality, diversity trumps ability.

Sadly, however, a collegial leadership in which the leader was - as Prime Ministers once were - merely primus inter pares conflicts with our celebocracy in which the media (and maybe voters) demand "strong leaders". The Green Party used to have a group of principal speakers but caved into media pressure. And a leader who tried to delegate power would be stigmatized as "weak."

In this sense, the question of whether Miliband should stand down - yet again - obscures more profound issues: is leadership and hierarchy really the best way of running political parties and government? Could it be that our idiot political culture which demands "strong" leadership is, in fact, an obstacle to good governance?

* Even with the massive benefits of an unpopular Tory party and benign economic climate, Tony Blair delegated a lot of policy-making to Gordon Brown, and took Labour to the brink of bankruptcy.

The problem is that the fixed-term parliament has led to an extended phoney war as legislation dries up. The media need something to get their teeth into and many backbenchers are bored.

Manifestos won't be published till early April, after the March budget, so we've got 5 months of nonsense to look forward to. The prominence given to the EU surcharge is also symptomatic: a slight story that would normally only exercise the likes of Daniel Hannan.

The danger is that this febrile atmosphere may give rise to emotivist policy-making, either to grab headlines or to avoid being on the wrong side of them.

Surely the question is, why is the Guardian indulging in such infantile games? At the last election they advised people to vote for the Lib Dems who are now rightly facing oblivion, so you'd think Rusbridger and co might think twice before joining the rest of the right wing press in its petennial, puerile game of get'red' Ed.

The childish desire to have a leader (=Daddy)to be able to solve our problems without us needing to think is being indulged by the media. I can't imagine a way out of this mess without a leader, a grown up to help us grow up. Horrible thought.

It seems to me there’s plenty for constructive political journalism to explore: policy policy and policy, but this is ignored, or said not to exist. Enter stage left: Russell Brand spots a disserted market. There’s a preference for ‘leadership’ comparisons. Perhaps because there’s a glut of stupid politicians, with an eye on their own careers, unable to see an obvious timing error.
Or maybe it’s because what’s written up as “of concern to the public” is largely a manufactured narrative, something that suits the agenda.

Certain Labour mps and members clearly want to stay in opposition as they prefer to carp rather than rule.

Kinnock is right that they are cowardly, as they have no credible alternative and it is too late to ditch the leader anyway. If they had a realistic alternative leader and policies they would have come up with them by now.

I am told there is a divide between the Blarites and "soft left" but I have not noticed much difference. The old divides inside the labour Party are ancient history, they are all responsible for their fate as they abandoned any real policy differences years ago.

It is one thing to split your party over actual disagreements as in the Bevanite period but quite a feat to split over entirely imaginary differences.

Probably Martin Kettle was left alone and unsupervised in Kings' Place on Saturday.

Martin Kettle wrote a very stupid article a few weeks ago, saying that Miliband had been weak and indecisive about the bombing of ISIS. I would have thought that the mergence of ISIS, and the need to contain it, called for a pause for reflection; that, however, was not the way Kettle saw it.

Used to be said that Oppositions did not win elections, instead Incumbents lost them. As it stands there seems little to choose between Labour and Tory and the Tories have not yet demonstrated a sufficient level of corruption and incompetence to lose. The bar is very high and it usually takes them about 15 years to clear it.

IMHO nothing good will happen between 2015 and 2020 and so the next election looks one to lose. Indeed, egged on by Farage the loony wing of the Tories might help them over the losing bar by 2020. So hang on Labour, retrench and get ready for 2020 or 2025. As for the poor voters, happy are those who expect little....

As for choosing a sensible pragmatic and collegiate politician, well we might just be fed-up enough to try it by 2025.

Does social democracy offer the electorate something in a time of austerity and neoliberalism? Look at the rise and rise (post referendum) of the SNP in Scotland (and Greens, SSP and non-aligned left thinking groups like Common Weal). The question is why is this not happening (or not visible?) in England?

What you really somehow need to do is to shed (as a society) blame culture, persuade people that learning from mistakes is good, that thinking and evidence is good, and that having wise rather than charismatic people in charge is good. You need an insanely charismatic and well balanced person (or team) to achieve that, and you need to overcome the ranks of vested interests and power that would be arrayed against you to win over the hearts and minds of the electorate.

Once in power you somehow have to turn economic and political thought to long term rather than short term success, and plan for a successful future.

Achieve all that and we may one day be both successful and become a democracy!